English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives The purpose of this study was to compare methods used for calculating heterogeneous patient-specific bone properties used in finite element analysis (FEA), in the field of implant dentistry, with the method based on homogenous bone properties.  Materials and Methods In this study, three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography data of an edentulous patient were processed to create a finite element model, and five identical 3D implant models were created and distributed throughout the dental arch. Based on the calculation methods used for bone material assignment, four groups—groups I to IV—were defined. Groups I to III relied on heterogeneous bone property assignment based on different equations, whereas group IV relied on homogenous bone properties. Finally, 150 N vertical and 60-degree-inclined forces were applied at the top of the implant abutments to calculate the von Mises stress and strain.  Results Groups I and II presented the highest stress and strain values, respectively. Based on the implant location, differences were observed between the stress values of group I, II, and III compared with group IV; however, no clear order was noted. Accordingly, variable von Mises stress and strain reactions at the bone–implant interface were observed among the heterogeneous bone property groups when compared with the homogenous property group results at the same implant positions.  Conclusion Although the use of heterogeneous bone properties as material assignments in FEA studies seem promising for patient-specific analysis, the variations between their results raise doubts about their reliability. The results were influenced by implants’ locations leading to misleading clinical simulations.

Evaluation of Bone–Implant Interface Stress and Strain Using Heterogeneous Mandibular Bone Properties Based on Different Empirical Correlations